How important is unity in government?

Ask any political or bureaucratic leader what it is that most hinders their capacity to achieve and they will certainly include in their answer a reference to "disunity". Clearly it makes planning more complicated and delivery more difficult.

Think about all of the important relationships in government – leaders and their parliamentary colleagues, governments and their parties, politicians and their public servants, central agencies and line agencies, managers and frontline staff, and service agencies and their clients and customers and it becomes immediately obvious that at least some level of working agreement is very important.

Let's start with the politicians.

Party leaders need to know that have the support of their colleagues. It adds strength to leadership and increases the time available to properly plan and implement policy. It improves the chances for evidence-based decision-making and reduces the temptation for "special deals" and "short-term fixes".

Within government the authority of a leader carries real weight and it gives public servants the confidence they need to implement policy with energy and commitment. Instability at the top, on the other hand, creates uncertainty within the administrative arm of government.

It's all about time and how it is used ("doing" or "plotting"), and power and how it is perceived ("strength" or "weakness").

Advertisement

The same sorts of issues are relevant to bureaucratic power and how it is used. Indeed some of the turf wars that occur within government can undermine "whole-of-government" initiatives and hamper the smooth delivery of programs.

Just as important are relations between the elected and non-elected parts of government. Ministers – and their advisers – who take up a hostile attitude towards their agencies may get unwanted kick-back and even resistance. If they have a change agenda they will need strong support from their senior officials and behaviour that unnecessarily harms that relationship should be unacceptable in a serious government.

All of these considerations lead me to ask, at what point is divisiveness within the political and bureaucratic class acceptable?"

You'd think it would be easy for a politician to answer that question – after all they need votes and voters reward unity over disunity even if they have doubts about the policies of those who are unified.

Leaders should be able to expect loyalty but understand that they need to earn it.

More generally politicians need to understand that unresolved leadership tensions within government are a complete negative.

Bureaucratic leaders too will have interests and ambitions, personal and departmental. They can plot and scheme but within a much tighter environment than that of the politicians.

Indeed, for them the authorising environment in which they work is a crucial issue. If the elected government is clear on its objectives and its leader has authority, it is much easier for public servants to stay focussed on the big picture.

If, on the other hand, there is a lack of clarity and weakness at the top the public sector can easily descend into dog-eat-dog politics. Whilst a lot of this would remain unseen by the public, at some point it will become visible, sometimes because of the program failures that can follow.

Good government, then, is not just about good ideas and good politics – it also needs unity within the parliamentary party and between the government and the public service. Unity is, however, something that has to be worked for in the real world of interest, ambition and ideology and the motto for our political and bureaucratic leaders needs to be "assume differences, and even conflict, but seek co-operation".